IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH            HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Kazi Md. Ejarul Haque Akondo

   and

Mr. Justice Mohi Uddin Shamim

First Miscellaneous Appeal No.99 of 2021

and

Civil Rule No. 287 (FM) of 2020

In the matter of:

Khandker Mohammad Khaled, son of late Delowar Ali Khandker and others

.... Plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners

-Versus-

Bangladesh  Bank,  represented  by  its Governor,  Bangladesh  Bank  Bhaban, Motijheel C/A, Dhaka and others

.... Defendants-respondents-opposite parties

                       Md. Nazmul Huda, Advocate 

                  …. For the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners

Mr. Parvez Hashem, Advocate

…. For the defendant-respondent-opposite party No.4        

Mr. Imran Ahmed Bhuiyan, Advocate with

Mr. Md. Anamul Hossain, Advocate

…. For the defendant-respondent-opposite party No.5

Mr. Moinuddin Farooqi, Advocate

…. For the defendant-respondent-opposite party No.7

Mr. Chowdhury Mokimuddin Khan Jahan Ali,

Advocate with

Mr. Sazal Mahmud Rasel, Advocate with

Mr. Syfuzzaman, Advocate

       …. For the defendant-respondent-opposite party No.8

Mr. Najmul Karim, Advocate with

             Mr. Mahabub Hasan Chowdhury, Advocate

…. For the defendant-respondent-opposite party No.9

        Mr. Md. Monzurul Alam (Sujon), Advocate with         Ms. Sharmin Akter, Advocate

…. For the defendant-respondent-opposite party No.10

       Mr. Moloy Kumar Roy, Advocate with

       Mr. Sheikh Sohel Mahmud, Advocate

…. For the defendant-respondent-opposite party No.11

       Ms. Nahid Hossain, Advocate

…. For the defendant-respondent-opposite party No.13

                                                   Mr. Khan Mohammad Shameem Aziz, with

Mr. Mostafa Mosharraf Hossain, Advocates

  …. For the defendant-respondent-opposite party No.14

Mr. Md. Saifur Rahman Chowdhury, Advocate

  …. For the defendant-respondent-opposite party No.15

Heard on 28.11.2024, 01.12.2024

    and

Judgment on 03.12.2024

Mohi Uddin Shamim, J.

Since the facts and points of law involved in the appeal and the Rule

are  intertwined,  those  are  being  heard  together  and  disposed  of  by  this common judgment.

The appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 23.02.2020 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Dhaka in Title Suit No.143 of 2020, rejecting the application for temporary injunction on behalf of  the plaintiffs-petitioners  under  Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2  read  with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,  1908  (hereinafter referred as CPC).

At  the  time  of  hearing  of  appeal  admission,  the  plaintiffs  filed  an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for temporary injunction for restraining the defendants from circulating and publishing further the names of the plaintiffs’ petitioners in the CIB report of Bangladesh Bank as defaulter borrower and, after hearing of the said application this Court was pleased to issue a rule calling upon the defendants-respondents-opposite parties to show cause as to why they should not be restrained by an order of injunction from publishing or  circulating  further  the  names  of  the  plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners  as defaulter borrowers in the report of Credit Information Bureau (CIB) of Bangladesh Bank and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this court may seem fit and proper.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, this Court also passed an ad- interim order of injunction restraining the defendants-respondents-opposite parties from further publication or circulation of the names of the plaintiffs- appellants-petitioners in the CIB report of Bangladesh Bank for a period of 8 weeks from date; which has subsequently been extended time to time and lastly it was extended till disposal of the Rule on 30.08.2022.

Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal as well as the rule, in short, are that the present appellant-petitioners as plaintiffs filed a title suit being Title Suit No.143 of 2020 before the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Dhaka for  declaration  to  the  effect  that  the  CIB  report  of  Bangladesh  Bank classifying the plaintiffs as defaulter borrower is illegal, collusive, mala fide, without lawful authority and not binding upon the plaintiffs. After filing of the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC, restraining the defendants from circulating and publishing further the name of the plaintiffs’

in the CIB report of Bangladesh Bank as defaulter borrowers. The application for injunction was taken up for hearing by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Dhaka on 23.02.2020 and ultimately the said application was rejected on the very same day.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of rejection dated  23.02.2020  the  plaintiff  as  appellant  preferred  the  instant  First Miscellaneous Appeal being No.99 of 2021 (FMAT No.185 of 2020). Soon after preferring the First Miscellaneous Appeal, the appellant as petitioner filed an  application  under  order  XXXIX,  rules  1 and  2 of  the  CPC  for injunction on the self-same averments and prayed as earlier and obtained the instant Rule and order of injunction.

No one appears to press the appeal or the Rule, though the matters have been appearing at the top of the daily cause list for hearing with the names of the learned counsels for the contending parties.

Ms.  Nahid  Hossain,  learned  advocate  appears  on  behalf  of  the defendant-respondent-opposite party No.13 to oppose the appeal as well as the rule, taking us to the memo of appeal, the application for injunction, the Rule issuing order and contends that, under the provision of section 27 KaKa of the Banking Companies Act, 1991 the Banks and the Financial Institutions are in its statutory obligation to send the name of its’ defaulting borrower(s) to Bangladesh Bank, and Bangladesh Bank in its turn, is under statutory obligation to insert the names of those defaulting borrowers in its CIB report and  circulating  those  names  and  report  to  all  the  banks  and  financial institutions of the country, having no illegality in it.

The learned counsel further contends that, since there has been legal embargo  in  challenging  the  propriety  of  any  action  and  steps  taken  by Bangladesh Bank under article 41(1)(2) of chapter III of the Bangladesh Bank Order,  1972  and  as  such  there  is  no  scope  to  challenge  the  inclusion, circulation and publications of the defaulting borrowers name in the CIB report and finally prays for dismissing the appeal and discharging the Rule.

The learned Counsels appear for and on behalf of the respondent opposite party Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 have adopted the above mentioned  submissions  so  advanced  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the respondent-opposite party No. 13 as of the submissions of their respective clients.

We have heard and considered the submissions so advanced by the learned counsels for the defendants-respondents-opposite parties, perused the grounds taken in the Memo of Appeal, application for injunction and the rule issuing order. We have also gone through the provisions of relevant laws and regulations; according to section 27 KaKa of the Banking Companies Act, 1991, it is the statutory duty of the banks and the financial institutions to send its’ defaulting borrowers’ name to Bangladesh Bank time to time and in this way, Bangladesh Bank is also in under legal obligation to include the names of those defaulting borrows to CIB report of Bangladesh Bank and circulating the same to the banks and financial institutions of the Country. According to the provisions of article 41(1)(2) of chapter III of the Bangladesh Bank Order, 1972, there is a clear bar to any legal proceeding against any action or steps taken by Bangladesh Bank against defaulting borrowers, which was enunciated in the decisions reported in 73 DLR 554 along with other reported cases.

Given such a legal embargo, we are not inclined to discuss such settled issue

further and we also do not find any legal grounds for which the impugned order can be called into question.

Considering the discussions so made hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the Appeal.

In the result, the Appeal is dismissed, however, without any order as to cost. Since the appeal is dismissed, consequently the connecting Rule is also discharged.

The order of injunction granted earlier by this Court at the time of issuance of the Rule is hereby recalled and vacated.

Communicate a copy of this judgment to the Court concerned and each of the respondent-opposite parties forthwith.

Kazi Md. Ejarul Haque Akondo, J.

I agree.

Syed Akramuzzaman Bench Officer